From theory to practice - page 701
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
1.I am not familiar with these laws :))
2.I know that there are two opposite processes: increase of entropy through expansion, i.e. thermal death and the opposite process is gravitational forces that lead to self-organization of matter
1. You live a long time and learn a long time(c)
2. you are shallow.))
Of course! It's the tail that counts! (С)
in fact, a lot of gibberish from the course of higher mathematics the participants of this topic are trying to quote, even if there are teachers of universities in the discussion, imho, only they can adequately operate with this gibberish, but only in the plane which is taught nowadays.... alas, the brain is quite practical, it is lazy and will not memorize what it does not use every day ))))
well and on the subject, to operate with triple integrals from quotations of higher mathematics is elementary, but in the course of higher mathematics, the teacher who wanted to teach always went to the graphical interpretation of mathematical calculations.... Alexey Savvateev with his courses of combinatorics and all that he wants to teach - he really wants to teach! ;)
Are you against me? This is a forum, not a scientific symposium, and everyone is free to express his thoughts on the air, albeit erroneous ones, truth is born in an argument, sometimes besides triple integrals and double logarithms simple truths must be understood, application and understanding must go together, not separately from each other.
Philosopher's Stone friction).
honourably, each value with a different value.
At what point will SB cease to be SB when added together :) or how can many SBs result in a non-SB, which is a paradox
e.g. autocorrelation will appear.
If you add a process to itself (identical functional dependence) n times, then when n tends to infinity nothing but infinity will occur.
If the processes are chosen independently so that the sum of series from their expected payoffs has a limit and dispersions are bounded, then we will get a Gaussian MT. The ACF of the increments remains zero (with different indices)
If the processes are chosen to be independent and so that the sum of series of their expectation has a limit, and the variance is bounded, then we obtain a Gaussian SB. The ACF of increments remains zero (at different indices)
well, then there is nothing else to be afraid of
in terms of any perspectives to recognize the randomness of learning FAO on the forex marketAre you against me? This is a forum, not a scientific symposium and everyone is free to express his/her thoughts on the air, even if erroneous, truth is born in an argument, sometimes simple truths must be understood apart from triple integrals and double logarithms, application and understanding must go together and not separately from each other.
What makes you think that? I'm always in favour of people communicating
ZS: I wanted to ask that in addition to the three-story formulas that participants googled, to add graphical interpretations of these laws, it will accelerate understanding
ZS: I wanted to ask that in addition to the three-storey formulas that participants have googled, to add graphical interpretations of these laws, this will speed up understanding
That is, not only chew it up, but also put it in your mouth). And yourself at least make some effort to understand the question you are interested in? Well, at least try).
well, then there's definitely nothing else to catch.
in terms of any prospect of realising the randomness of learning FAO in forexThe use of non-stationary (but piecewise stationary) SB is sensible enough. It is suitable for trends and their changes. For prices in a corridor, for example, something else is needed (for example, stationary with dependence and non-zero ACF). So yes, it is unlikely that a theorver can give some kind of Uniform Price Model.
But on the other hand, we have no other meaningful ways of dealing with uncertainty.
What makes you think that? I'm always in favour of people communicating
ZS: I wanted to ask that in addition to the three-story formulas that participants have googled, add graphical interpretations of these laws, it will speed up understanding
all in one line, some are half a page long
but all have dull formulas:
either it's a polynomial function of order N
or a theorvert with probability less than 1
Whoever says that==1 is obviously wearing rose-coloured glasses
However, this has all been trampled down and tossed into the firebox a long time ago.That is, not only to chew it up, but also to put it in your mouth.) Do you make any effort yourself to understand the question you are interested in? Well, at least try.)
Come on... I mean, I'm sure they're all professionals but an outsider might think, "What a mess they've got...")
)))